Appeal brought on 2 July 2013 by BX against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-88/11 BX v Commission

(Case T-352/13 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BX (Washington, United States) (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Set aside the judgment of Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013, in Case F-88/11;

Annul the contested decision of the Selection Board not to include the name of the appellant on the reserve list of successful candidates in the competition EPSO/AD/148/09-RO (OJ 2009 C 14 A, p. 1); and

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging the Civil Service Tribunal’s finding (at paragraph 33 of its judgment) implying that the appellant did not meet the standard of proof is not applicable in the case at hand.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal made an error in law when stating that a candidate whose initial mark was below the passing mark in accordance with pre-established criteria, is not entitled to a comparative assessment (paragraph 41), as:

–    According to the settled case law, each and every candidate in an EPSO competition is entitled to a comparative assessment, irrespective of whether his/her initial result is above or below the passing mark;

–    The Selection Board did not fulfill its comparative assessment duty not only with respect to the appellant, but also with respect to all the other candidates in the oral test as the time reserved for the final evaluation session was manifestly insufficient; and

–    The judgment under appeal does not rely on the relevant arguments raised by the appellant and does not take into account the inconsistencies in the defendant's arguments.

Third plea in law, alleging that the finding of the Civil Service Tribunal, at paragraph 45 of the judgment under appeal, according to which the principle of equal treatment has not been infringed, is incorrect.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules concerning the composition of the Selection Board, as:

–    The Selection Board had an unbalanced composition (Article 3, fifth indent, of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union) :

–    The Civil Service Tribunal committed an error in law when stating that it was not disputed that the Selection Board consisted of three members during the appellant’s oral test (paragraph 49 if the judgment under appeal) ;

–    The Civil Service Tribunal erroneously quoted the Bartha case (paragraph 49) so as to support its finding that the principle of balanced representation of men and women in the composition of the Selection Board has not been infringed.

–    The simultaneous presence of full and alternate members in the Selection Board at the oral tests that rendered the proceedings of the selection board unlawful in the case at hand (paragraph 50);

–    The infringement of the principle of the stable composition of the Selection Board (paragraph 51).

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in its decision that the circumstances of the present case do not warrant application of Article 87(2) of its Rules of Procedure (paragraph 81), since the defendant conceded that the rejection of the appellant's previous administrative complaints were based on an erroneous motivation and therefore the defendant should bear the costs.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the moral damages were justified.